Blasphemy in the UK • Non-Gaming • Social • Eurogamer.net

Ginger 10 Jan 2005 19:47:30 7,256 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 19 years ago

Blasphemy is illegal?????

OK, so this is news to me. Anybody know what the legal definition of blasphemy is and whether anyone has ever challenged the existence of god in a court of law?

What's the betting that this law only applies for Christianity? Another fine example of outdated laws that really need sorting out

/fumes

MikeD 10 Jan 2005 19:55:03 10,063 posts
Seen 5 months ago
Registered 18 years ago

Funny situation here in the Netherlands. Like so many western countries we are having some problems with extremist muslims. Our Christian Democrats party wanted to make the worst 'blasphemy' against them illegal so Muslims couldn't get outraged (this was after filmmaker the van gogh had been shot, who had made a negative movie about muslims beaing their wives).

Reaction of the other political parties? They requested that the anti-blasphemy law should be removed from completely, even the current version that protects Christians, so everyone can be treated equally. Hahahaha. And people supported it, too!

Unfortunately the Christian Democrats are ruling at the moment and they put the whole plan to the backburner, but boy, was I amused.

Retroid Moderator 10 Jan 2005 19:58:45 45,464 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 18 years ago

Blasphemy = load of crap

Whizzo 10 Jan 2005 20:00:09 44,810 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

Can't see the case going far, if it was so blasphemous why did it take years for them to try and stop it?

Just because it was shown on TV doesn't stop what the show is and has been performed many hundreds of times. I thought it was pretty good.

He said the show was "much worse" than he expected when he saw it and said it portrayed Jesus as a "coprophiliac sexual deviant". A coprophiliac is someone sexually aroused by faeces.

No it doesn't, the same actor that plays the perve plays Jesus, it's not the same thing as Jesus being a coprophiliac. He does say he's a little bit gay, oh no!

Dirtbox 10 Jan 2005 20:02:27 92,595 posts
Seen 21 hours ago
Registered 19 years ago

Post deleted

mal 10 Jan 2005 20:12:07 29,326 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years ago

Ginger wrote:
Blasphemy is illegal?????

OK, so this is news to me. Anybody know what the legal definition of blasphemy is and whether anyone has ever challenged the existence of god in a court of law?

What's the betting that this law only applies for Christianity? Another fine example of outdated laws that really need sorting out

I believe it does only apply to Christianity. Specifically the Church of England. Any Catholics or Protestants of any other denomination are in the same boat as the rest. Certain of these other religions are hoping that new laws that criminalise incitement to religious hatred, but Dave Blunkett reckoned they wouldn't. In any case, I believe steps to level the playing field between Anglican Chritianity and other religions is going about it the wrong way.

Personally I suspect it's all got a lot to do with this country's conjunction of the church and state. The head of state is the Queen, and the head of the Church of England is her too. It could be argued that to criticise the Anglican faith is to criticise the Queen, and so is a form of treason. That's clearly outdated though, so maybe you could drop the blasphemy law without dividing up church and state. I think that would be a missed opportunity though.

Significantly, legal opinion suggests that the Blasphemy law is in conflict with the right to free speech which we now have for the first time thanks to the EU Constitution of Human Rights. That's according to a useful FAQ from the beeb.

MetalDog 10 Jan 2005 20:12:58 24,076 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years ago

I'm kind of torn on this one... I don't believe many of you realise just how pointless and hurtful this sort of thing is. On the other hand, the blasphemy laws have been rampantly abused in the past. Tough one.

For all you Athiests out there; should it be okay in our society to do something when it's only possible purpose is to hurt other people?

I have no problem with stuff like Life of Brian because the only thing they ripped the piss out of were the institutions and follies of man. I can see a legitimate cause for doing that with religious organisations.
What /possible/ reason is there for portraying Christ that way, other than to hurt people who believe in him and flout your own lack of respect? You're not questioning their faith structure, you're just attacking them.

So, why should it be okay to hurt people because you don't agree with or like them? Why should it be okay for the BBC to ignore all those complaints and broadcast something so clearly seen as a hate attack on a significant section of the British populace? Would it be okay if it was Mohammed? Would it be okay if it was Bhudda? Or the God and Godess of Wiccan belief, or a Sacred Cow?

I'm not sure if Criminal prosecution is the way to go, but it's depressing to see how fucking /gleeful/ a lot of the fundie Athiests have been about this.

Dirtbox 10 Jan 2005 20:15:45 92,595 posts
Seen 21 hours ago
Registered 19 years ago

Post deleted

Freek 10 Jan 2005 20:16:43 7,682 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 18 years ago

It's offensive?
Hmm, here's a little tip: don't go see it then!

To quote the opening of Dogma: Remember, God has a sense of humor aswell, just look at the platapus.

MetalDog 10 Jan 2005 20:25:01 24,076 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years ago

Freek wrote:
It's offensive?
Hmm, here's a little tip: don't go see it then!

To quote the opening of Dogma: Remember, God has a sense of humor aswell, just look at the platapus.

I'm sure he does, but that's kind of beside the point =)

It was broadcast by the BBC, /that's/ where the real irksomeness of it comes in. I would be just as pissed off if the BBC broadcast a show containing pointlessly hateful material against Athiests. I appreciate you probably don't believe that, but it's true. Can you imagine them broadcasting a fundie bible-basher condemming you all to Hell (outside a documentary)? I sure as hell can't - thank God.

Retroid Moderator 10 Jan 2005 20:26:32 45,464 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 18 years ago

MetalDog wrote:
For all you Athiests out there; should it be okay in our society to do something when it's only possible purpose is to hurt other people?

You mean, like, saying that atheists should go to hell? That they shouldn't be allowed to vote? That they're satanists? That they deserve to die, to be beaten?

All been said / done.

All as nonsense as blasphemy is.

MetalDog 10 Jan 2005 20:30:46 24,076 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years ago

Of course all that's been done, Retroid, but it evades the question.

Should it be seen as A-Ok behavour? I don't think it should be. I think we should disapprove loudly when that sort of nonsense is spouted - be it by Christians or Athiests.

Freek 10 Jan 2005 20:34:07 7,682 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 18 years ago

MetalDog wrote:

Freek wrote:
It's offensive?
Hmm, here's a little tip: don't go see it then!

To quote the opening of Dogma: Remember, God has a sense of humor aswell, just look at the platapus.

I'm sure he does, but that's kind of beside the point =)

It was broadcast by the BBC, /that's/ where the real irksomeness of it comes in. I would be just as pissed off if the BBC broadcast a show containing pointlessly hateful material against Athiests. I appreciate you probably don't believe that, but it's true. Can you imagine them broadcasting a fundie bible-basher condemming you all to Hell (outside a documentary)? I sure as hell can't - thank God.

It's satire, if they did that in the same way or even not in the same way, perhaps had a 3 hour special dedicated solely to showing how I am going to hell for laughing at that show I woulden't have any issues with it.
If that's what they think, please feel free to say it, don't expect me to listen though but you're welcome to say it.

And it should be A-ok to make these kinds of shows, they're comedy, not to be taken seriously. There shoulden't be any law that said certain things are not okay to make jokes about.

The age old saying fitts this perfectly: don't agree with what your saying, but I support your right to say it.

Edited by Freek at 20:37:18 10-01-2005

Shinji 10 Jan 2005 20:36:47 5,902 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 20 years ago

Would it be okay if it was Mohammed? Would it be okay if it was Bhudda? Or the God and Godess of Wiccan belief, or a Sacred Cow?

Yes. That's the whole point.

MetalDog, your posts on this topic are always intelligent, but I find myself wondering if you actually watched Jerry Springer: The Opera. "Pointlessly hateful material" is a long way from being an accurate description of the show I saw in London a few months back; this whole idea that it's an attack on religion seems to have stemmed from a quite far-right Christian group who've made a lot of noise in the red tops over the past week or so.

it's depressing to see how fucking /gleeful/ a lot of the fundie Athiests have been about this

I haven't seen that at all - I've seen a lot of people being very happy that the BBC didn't roll over in the face of pressure from the tabloids, but that's being happy about a triumph of free speech rather than glee at seeing Christianity getting a kicking (which, I reiterate, really isn't what this show is about).

I think it's also worth bearing in mind that Jesus isn't just a key figure in the Christian faith. He's a cultural icon, an arguably mythical person that the bulk of people in this part of the world are indoctrinated about from an early age. He's a major part of our psyche, regardless of our faith, and a touchstone of common ground between people all over the western world. That naturally makes him a key figure in pop culture, including music, film... and comedy. Christians are really going to have to learn to live with that, I'm afraid. Centuries of Christian-dominated government, education and thought have made their imagery and stories more mainstream than the faith itself is any more. The results of that aren't always going to be pretty.

I think the anger against the BBC in this instance is misdirected (I had to laugh when I discovered that the swear word total of 8000 being trumpeted by critics had actually been multiplied by 27 because there were 27 singers in the chorus...), but there are certainly depictions of Jesus which could be construed as very offensive - and in those instances, sorry, Christians will have to learn a lesson from their founder and turn the other cheek, because their delicate sensibilities about a semi-mythological being do not, and should not, override the right to free speech.

Edited by Shinji at 20:37:04 10-01-2005

mal 10 Jan 2005 20:43:09 29,326 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years ago

MetalDog wrote:
I'm kind of torn on this one... I don't believe many of you realise just how pointless and hurtful this sort of thing is. On the other hand, the blasphemy laws have been rampantly abused in the past. Tough one.

For all you Athiests out there; should it be okay in our society to do something when it's only possible purpose is to hurt other people?

I have no problem with stuff like Life of Brian because the only thing they ripped the piss out of were the institutions and follies of man. I can see a legitimate cause for doing that with religious organisations.
What /possible/ reason is there for portraying Christ that way, other than to hurt people who believe in him and flout your own lack of respect? You're not questioning their faith structure, you're just attacking them.

As is always the case with these sorts of situations, it's frustatingly difficult to find out exactly what happened. Some are saying that all the Christ character said was the he was 'a little bit gay', which I hardly think should be counted as a slur. And even if the portrail was offensive it might be said that, in the same way that South Park did it, the point was to take the mickey out of American institutions (television) and some of their irrational beliefs about the man. You'd be arguing that the character was not Christ, but only a representation of false belief. I think you'd be on very shaky ground there though.

Still, I didn't see the show, so I can't say whether what it did was offensive to Christians or not. Similarly with the allegedly 'anti-Sikh' play recently. I haven't heard anyone actually explaining the facts of the play, so I can't judge it.

Still, it's a common trick in arguments to exaggerate something someone believes in. As much as I'd like straw-man arguments to be legally forbidden, I don't see it happening. Admittedly, these straw-men aren't usually people's religious beliefs, but that's mainly because people very rarely argue about religion, except for when they're trying to incite religious hatred. Doesn't mean there isn't a valid case for it though. It must be possible to criticise a belief, and if that belief is of the existence and ultimate goodness of a person, then by extension it must be valid to criticise that person.

Like you, I'm torn. In any civil society it must be possible to outlaw the sort of crap spouted by thugs and the Daily Mail. But on the other hand, I rather like being able to say what I like, even if it happens to offend a few people in what I believe is a good cause (such as readers of the Daily Mail). I put my faith in the courts, and hope they implement the law banning incitement to religious hatred right. And while they're at it, knock the protection of the Church of England down to the same level.

Edited by mal at 20:47:41 10-01-2005

MetalDog 10 Jan 2005 20:53:26 24,076 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years ago

Shinji wrote:

it's depressing to see how fucking /gleeful/ a lot of the fundie Athiests have been about this

I haven't seen that at all - I've seen a lot of people being very happy that the BBC didn't roll over in the face of pressure from the tabloids, but that's being happy about a triumph of free speech rather than glee at seeing Christianity getting a kicking (which, I reiterate, really isn't what this show is about).

Yes, I know the whole show isn't about giving Christianity a kicking =) I have no real problem (or liking) for the rest of the show and even as it stands, had it been broadcast on any of the non BBC channels, I'd have just ignored it.

I think the anger against the BBC in this instance is misdirected (I had to laugh when I discovered that the swear word total of 8000 being trumpeted by critics had actually been multiplied by 27 because there were 27 singers in the chorus...)

That is funny =) Misdirected though? Eh, not sure about that. The BBC broadcasts too much meaningless shit as it is. I'd hate to see even more tripe on it.

... but there are certainly depictions of Jesus which could be construed as very offensive - and in those instances, sorry, Christians will have to learn a lesson from their founder and turn the other cheek, because their delicate sensibilities about a semi-mythological being do not, and should not, override the right to free speech.

I certainly wouldn't get violent about it, but there's nothing in my faith that tells me I can't express my opinion when I see something I don't like. As I've said several times, what I don't like /most/ about this is the fact that the BBC broadcast it.

As for free speech, I have also expressed my doubts on flinging law around, but I do believe that as a society we /should/ disapprove of mouthing off hate speech, no matter who it's directed at.
Most of us here would react stridently to anyone spouting off about niggers, however, there is a distinct lack of consistancy to it, leaving several groups (most non-religous) fair game for some truely vile remarks.

You have to admit, I do tend to argue against all of that as /numerous/ rants on the chav-bashing we get here attest

Freek 10 Jan 2005 20:58:07 7,682 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 18 years ago

There is a verry, verry, verry, verry, enormously, large, gigantic difference between posting an opinion about something and going to court to try and get something banned.

Nobody would have an issue with a christian group saying: we don't like this show, if you're a christian stay away from it.
But trying to make it illegal that's going way too far.

Retroid Moderator 10 Jan 2005 21:02:55 45,464 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 18 years ago

There's a tolerance for poking fun, for asking questions, for satire etc.

'Hate' & incitement is an entirely different, it shouldn't be tolerated.

And that includes all those 'charming' preachers who support these things against gays, atheists etc.

mal 10 Jan 2005 21:03:24 29,326 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years ago

jazon wrote:
your mother sucks cocks in hell is that blasphemy?

Er no. I'm pretty sure you can insult anyone's mother. Well, apart from Jesus', obviously.

And anyway, my mother is still well and truly alive. However, it is possible that my mother sucks cocks in Hull. It's not too far to drive.

MikeD 10 Jan 2005 21:47:23 10,063 posts
Seen 5 months ago
Registered 18 years ago

Spouting off against 'niggers'? Was that word a conscious choice to prove a point?

MetalDog 10 Jan 2005 21:51:37 24,076 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years ago

MikeD wrote:
Spouting off against 'niggers'? Was that word a conscious choice to prove a point?

Well, it was kind of the entire point of that particular sentence, yeah. Probably should have gone in quotes though to make that absolutely clear - although I find it hard to believe that /you/ believe I'm sitting here in a pointy-hooded sheet =)

Shinji 10 Jan 2005 21:56:22 5,902 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 20 years ago

The BBC broadcasts too much meaningless shit as it is. I'd hate to see even more tripe on it.

See, I actually think this is one of the better things they've broadcast recently. It's a hugely successful stage show with good production values and a hilarious and exceptionally sharply written script. Is there swearing? Yes. Is it all about the soft and unpleasant underbelly of society? Yes. Will some people be offended? Yes. Does that make it "meaningless shit"? No, I don't think so.

I'm not attempting to compare this show to Charles Dickens, but it IS worth going back and looking at what a lot of people of the time thought about Dickens. He was considered exceptionally vulgar and unpleasant by many in literary society for his insistence on depicting the truly nasty side of life at the time. Nowadays, it seems, those who considered him vulgar would have gone to court to try and shut him up for offending them.

there's nothing in my faith that tells me I can't express my opinion when I see something I don't like

Sure, and nobody is trying to prevent opinions from being expressed. My issue here is that many of those expressing opinions don't know what they're talking about; and that some of them have chosen to follow the route of legal censorship, which I find despicable.

Most of us here would react stridently to anyone spouting off about niggers, however, there is a distinct lack of consistancy to it, leaving several groups (most non-religous) fair game for some truely vile remarks.

I think the question is where you draw the line and say "this is clearly a group of people that can be discriminated against, this however is a label applied to a set of behaviours and is therefore not subject to discrimination."

Race, sexuality and most physical features are obviously something you don't choose, and as such are completely unfair targets for discrimination in any form. On the other hand, when I talk about "chavs", I'm referring to a certain set of behaviours and ways of interacting to society which I find absolutely repulsive and ignorant, and I think that's a fair viewpoint to hold.

Religion falls somewhere between the two. People are entitled to believe what they want, but realistically, that's protected by the right to free speech and free thought. I'm exceptionally wary of certain arguments for special protection of religions, to be honest, because there are some religions (including some very mainstream ones) which hold and practice beliefs that are utterly opposed to fundamental tenets of our society - like freedom of belief, freedom of expression and so on, which ironically are the basic tenets that allow these religions to continue to exist in the first place...

MikeD 10 Jan 2005 21:57:24 10,063 posts
Seen 5 months ago
Registered 18 years ago

Why do you say: /you/ ?

I hope not just from the bit of text I wrote in this thread, because there was a whole lot behind that politically. Basically the christian deomcrats (cda from now on, party name) wanted to include blasphemy against islam/muslims in the already existing blasphemy against christians law, which is basically saying that the guy who was killed was asking for it by 'offending' them.

edit: and of coure I didn't think that you were some kind of klan member. :-)

though that would explain why you hate the jerry springer opera, which ridicules them...hmmm, suspicious. ;-)

Edited by MikeD at 22:02:22 10-01-2005

MetalDog 10 Jan 2005 22:10:53 24,076 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years ago

As we so often do, we're going to have to agree to disagree on just about all of that =)

There is some class stuff out there that would offend some people - personally, I'm a fan of Old Harry's Game because it shows (to my mind) some real intelligence in its satire. I don't hold the same opinion of the Jerry Springer show, or of it's stage parody.

I agree that there's nothing wrong with finding 'chav' behaviour despicable, however, I can't agree that anti-social, pg-ignorant behaviour should make it okay to consider sterilising anyone in burberry - which is not an opinion you hold, but does appear to be close to some people's opinions - that's the sort of speech I rant against.

Regarding the anit-hate laws on religion, I have a nasty sinking feeling all its going to do is make people hate the religious even more than they do already.

MikeD: The emphasis was simply because I thought you probably ought to know me better than that, that's all. If you don't, oh well.

I'm not sure what bit of news you're referring to there, but I don't think offending people is worthy of the death sentence, no. I am, rather predictably, anti death-sentence, be it institutionalised or otherwise.

MikeD 10 Jan 2005 22:21:37 10,063 posts
Seen 5 months ago
Registered 18 years ago

Ah, the bit of news in my first post. But never mind not that important.

Yes, I know you better than to think you were a racist. But I've seen use of nigger lead to heated arguments on here and thought you might want to avoid that.

But considering I am the only one who reacted to it I should just shut up now and leave you to the more intelligent discussion.

ahum.

Shinji 10 Jan 2005 23:34:28 5,902 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 20 years ago

I can't agree that anti-social, pg-ignorant behaviour should make it okay to consider sterilising anyone in burberry

Well, no. On the other hand, it's again a question of where you draw the line. I've certainly seen situations (public transport is usually good for these little miniature dramas) which leave me wondering to myself why some people are allowed to breed and inflict their ignorance on their offspring. I'm not about to start calling for chemical castration for everyone who wears burberry caps, but equally I can understand where that kind of angry feeling comes from.

You complain about people mocking Christianity; it's worth considering that in the whole chav attitude and approach to life, many people see a deliberate and unpleasant attempt to mock and undermine a lot of the decent things about our society.

Regarding the anit-hate laws on religion, I have a nasty sinking feeling all its going to do is make people hate the religious even more than they do already.

If you enact special laws to protect something like that, it starts making people go "hang on, what's wrong with this thing that makes it need special laws to protect it?" - which isn't an entirely unfair reaction in a lot of cases. I don't really see what's special about religious belief as opposed to any other free thought, and why it should be afforded special status under law. Never mind that if you start giving religions legal status, you run into thorny territory over what actually constitutes a religion...

Deleted user 10 January 2005 23:39:59

A race, a religion, a socio-economic group and a lifestyle choice are all very different things, and yet in some of these posts it seems that there is no difference between them at all.

Surely we must be allowed to hate some people for some reasons? I accept that there is no such thing as a healthy hatred, but there are good reasons to hate some people.

Take Arsenal fans...

Ginger 11 Jan 2005 08:17:38 7,256 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 19 years ago

MetalDog wrote:
although I find it hard to believe that /you/ believe I'm sitting here in a pointy-hooded sheet =)

Can you tap dance?

Edited by Ginger at 08:17:48 11-01-2005

MetalDog 11 Jan 2005 08:32:03 24,076 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years ago

Tapdancing would be more your forte' wouldn't it?

Ginger 11 Jan 2005 08:41:07 7,256 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 19 years ago

touche (can't remember how to do the accents).

I think I might have missed a rather large smiley off of my last post. Sorry if I offended.